Hello,
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Pascal Cuoq wrote:
That is a big can of worm you have pointed me to.
Historically TCC hasn't cared much about invalid input, so yeah, there be
dragons :)
Here is another part of the code that seems wrong and continues to seem
wrong even with the suggested change:
... struct_layout excerpt ...
align starts its life as an automatic, uninitialized variable. At each
iteration, the call to type_size sets it unless the call fails and
leaves align's previous value in it.
My only change so far in this function is the comment “call type_size here,
because t->type can be incomplete if it is a flexible array member”: I stand
by this comment, because calling ctype_size here makes TCC abort while
compiling pcctest.c.
Sure, at this point you can't require a complete type (for the reasons you
state).
For a flexible array member of a complete element type, this currently works
out fine : size_type stores the element type's alignment even if the array
is a FAM.
Yeah, that's the idea.
struct s {
char a;
enum e b[];
} s;
struct t {
int a[3];
void b[];
} t;
typedef void u;
struct v {
int a[3];
u b[];
} v;
struct w {
int a[3];
struct n b[];
} w;
The thing to realize about all these invalid examples is, that it's not
the struct decl which is wrong, i.e. you don't need to change anything
within struct_decl or struct_layout. It's already the array declarator
itself which is wrong: an array declarator requires a complete element
type.
So, what you want to change is post_type (which cares for array and
function declarators, given a base type) so that the incoming type is
complete if necessary.
Ciao,
Michael.
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
